Mesolithic Bone Tools of South-West Europe : the Example of the French Site of Le Cuzoul De Gramat Benjamin Marquebielle

Home , Bone tool, Tardenoisian

Mesolithic bone tools of South-West Europe : the example of the French site of le Cuzoul de Gramat Benjamin Marquebielle

To cite this version:

Benjamin Marquebielle. Mesolithic bone tools of South-West Europe : the example of the French site of le Cuzoul de Gramat. 7th Meeting of the Worked Bone Research Group, Sep 2009, Wroclaw, Poland. hal-01990262

HAL Id: hal-01990262 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01990262 Submitted on 11 Feb 2019

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Written in Bones

Studies on technological and social contexts of past faunal skeletal remains

edited by Justyna Baron Bernadeta Kufel-Diakowska

Uniwersytet Wrocławski Instytut Archeologii

Wrocław 2011 Institute of Archaeology, University of Wrocław, 2011

Editors Justyna Baron and Bernadeta Kufel-Diakowska

Reviewers Arkadiusz Marciniak, Jarosław Wilczyński

Layout Janusz M. Szafran, Jarosław Michalak

Cover Justyna Baron

ISBN 978-83-61416-64-7

Wrocławska Drukarnia Naukowa PAN im. Stanisława Kulczyńskiego Sp. z o.o. 53-505 Wrocław, ul. Lelewela 4 Contents

Preface ...... 5

Methods and methodology Steven P. Ashby The Language of the Combmaker: interpreting complexity in Viking-Age Industry ...... 9 Elisabeth A. Stone The Role of Ethnographic Museum Collections in Understanding Bone Tool Use ...... 25

Materials and technology Aline Averbouh, Jean-Marc Pétillon Identification of “debitage by fracturation” on reindeer antler: case study of the Badegoulian levels at the Cuzoul de Vers (Lot, France) ...... 41 Bárbara Avezuela Aristu, Esteban Álvarez-Fernández, Jesús Jordá Pardo, Emilio Aura Tortosa The barnacles: A new species used to make a Gravettian suspended object from Nerja Cave (Málaga, Spain) ...... 53 Benjamin Marquebielle Mesolithic bone tools in Southwestern Europe: the example of the French site of “Le Cuzoul de Gramat” ...... 63 Stefan Pratsch Mesolithic antler artefacts in the North European Plain ...... 79 Marcin Diakowski Bone and antler artefacts from Pobiel 10, Lower Silesia, Poland. Are they really Mesolithic? . . . . 93 Selena Vitezović The Neolithic Bone Industry from Drenovac, Serbia ...... 117 Erika Gál Prehistoric antler- and bone tools from Kaposújlak-Várdomb (South-Western Hungary) with special regard to the Early Bronze Age implements ...... 137 Peggy Morgenstern Typical hide working tools from the late Bronze Age of Moldova ...... 165 Corneliu Beldiman, Diana-Maria Sztancs, Viorica Rusu-Bolindeţ, Irina Adriana Achim Skeletal technologies, metal-working and wheat harvesting: ancient bone and antler anvils for manufacturing saw-toothed iron sickles discovered in Romania ...... 173 4 Katrin Struckmeyer The bone tools from the dwelling mound Feddersen Wierde, Germany, and their functions . . . . . 187 Marloes Rijkelijkhuizen Dutch medieval bone and antler combs ...... 197 Hans Christian Küchelmann Whale Bones as architectural elements in and around Bremen, Germany ...... 207 Marloes Rijkelijkhuizen Large or small? African elephant tusk sizes and the Dutch ivory trade and craft ...... 225 Bernadeta Kufel-Diakowska The Hamburgian Zinken perforators and burins – flint tools as evidence of antler working . . . . . 233

Social contexts Heidi Luik, Mirja Ots, Liina Maldre From the Neolithic to the Bronze Age: continuity and changes in bone artefacts in Saaremaa, Estonia ...... 243 Florentina Oleniuc, Luminiţa Bejenaru Preliminary Data Concerning the Manufacturing of Animal Raw Materials in the Chalcolithic Cucuteni B Settlement of Poduri-Dealul Ghindaru, Romania ...... 263 Manuel Altamirano García Bone industry from the Bronze Age in Central Iberia. The Settlement of La Motilla Del Azuer . . . . 273 Justyna Baron Ritual contexts of animal bone deposits from the Roman Iron Age settlement at Magnice, SW Poland ...... 285 Felix Lang Activity not Profession. Considerations about Bone Working in Roman Times ...... 295 Magdalena Konczewska Bone, horn and antler working in medieval Wrocław ...... 305 Kamilla Pawłowska The remains of a late medieval workshop in Inowroclaw (Kuyavia, Poland): horncores, antlers and bones ...... 313

Authors’ Adresses ...... 321 Benjamin Marquebielle

Mesolithic bone tools in Southwestern Europe: the example of the French site of “Le Cuzoul de Gramat”

The Mesolithic osseous material industry of southwestern Europe seems to be less developed than in northern Europe, where Mesolithic bones tools are plentiful and have been more extensively studied. Only a small number of studies have been realized and no general synthesis exists at present. Is this because the Mesolithic populations had virtually no osseous material industry or did the remains simply suffer from poor preservation conditions? This paper advances some arguments in favour of the second hypothesis by presenting the results of a technological study of the osseous material industry at the French site of “Le Cuzoul de Gramat”, situated in the Lot region. This deposit is famous for its substantial stratigraphy that is dated to the recent phases of the Mesolithic. Faunal remains, and thus the osseous material industry, are well preserved in the limestone environment. We identified several technical transformation schemes and provide evidence of real choices in the selection of raw materials and their exploitation. It is quite a new image of the Mesolithic osseous material industry that begins to appear. Keywords: axe, Le Cuzoul de Gramat, deer antler, Mesolithic, technological analysis, wild boar canine

Introduction

Surrounded by Azilian cultures and their harpoons studying a site with good conditions for the preser- and Neolithic cultures and their awls, the Mesolithic vation of organic remains and a long period of oc- cultures of southern France seem to have developed cupation. only a small-scale osseous material industry. While The French site of “Le Cuzoul de Gramat” is one there are a large number of Mesolithic sites, these of the major sites for understanding the Mesolithic in deposits often consist of open-air sites or are situated southern France. It was first excavated between 1922 in environments unfavourable to the preservation of and 1933 by R. Lacam and A. Niederlender, who organic material. published a very good study (Lacam et al. 1944). Does this scarcity imply that bone tools were Their work helped develop the first cultural and rare during Mesolithic? Or does it simply show that chronological definitions of the French Mesolithic. the remains of this exploitation suffered from poor However, R. Lacam and A. Niederlender presented taphonomic conditions? And, in this latter case, is only a small number of bone tools in their publica- it still possible to reveal the typological, technical tion. They did not see, or did not pay attention to and economic peculiarities of the Mesolithic osseous the significant amount of debitage waste.N owadays, material industry? To try to answer this, we began by with the development of technological studies, these 64 Benjamin Marquebielle

Fig. 1: localisation of Le Cuzoul de Gramat . DAO : A. Marquebielle remains appear to be rich in information concerning osseous material industry of the ancient collections the modalities of exploitation of osseous raw mate- (Marquebielle 2007), by applying a technological rials, often even richer than the finished objects. In approach, such as that defined in particular by A. 2005, N. Valdeyron, of the University of Toulouse, Averbouh (Averbouh 2000; Averbouh, Provenzano began new excavations and allowed us to study the 1999).

The site and stratigraphy of “Le Cuzoul de Gramat”

Le Cuzoul de Gramat consists of a rock-shelter and A. Niederlender defined seven stratigraphic levels a cave located in the Lot region of France (Fig. 1). It (Fig. 2). Adhering to the Mesolithic partition of the is situated at the bottom of a vast depression (doline) time (Coulonges 1935), they attributed the oldest in a karstic region. It is famous for its substantial level to the Sauveterrian period, the five following stratigraphy – covering the entire Mesolithic period to the Tardenoisian period and the most recent to the (providing information especially about the recent Neolithic. At present, the term “Tardenoisian” is no phases) – and for a Mesolithic burial. R. Lacam and longer used for the Mesolithic of southern France

Fig. 2: stratigraphic section made by R . Lacam et A . Niederlender . Skeleton is represented in level II Mesolithic bone tools in Southwestern Europe: the example of the French site of “Le Cuzoul de Gramat” 65 but it is necessary to understand it here in the sense ods. The “Tardenoisian” levels, as R. Lacam and A. of the “second Mesolithic”. Niederlender called them, on the other hand, are well We know now that levels 1 and 7, as defined byR . dated to the second Mesolithic thanks to the lithic Lacam and A. Niederlender (the oldest and the most industry. We consequently studied the osseous ma- recent respectively, the numbering of levels being terial industry of these levels, considering the five inverted in the publication), are not homogeneous. levels as one because firstly, the distinction between Level I, the oldest, is a mixture of early Mesolithic Tardenoisian I and II is now obsolete and secondly, levels and earlier levels (such as the Azilian). Level the stratigraphic origin of numerous remains is not VII, the most recent, is a mixture of levels dated clear (many are simply marked “Tardenoisien”, for to the Neolithic, the Bronze Age and historic peri- example).

Studying an old collection

We studied a collection from ancient excavations, of the ancient excavations, the state of the collec- and while the work of R. Lacam and A. Niederlender tion has evolved. A significant portion of the bone was very good, their research objectives, and thus tools have disappeared (we found only 26 bevelled their methods of excavation and preservation, were objects while R. Lacam and A. Niederlender spoke very different from those employed today. Firstly, of 42 objects) or the distribution of the remains per remains were selected during the excavation (we level is different from that described in the publica- found lithic artefacts, bone tools and faunal remains tion. The evolution of the collection of the antler ob- in their back dirt). While some characteristic lithic jects is the most difficult to appraise because in the objects could be identified as belonging to the Me- publication there is no precise account of these types solithic, it is often more difficult, or even impossi- of remains. We thus worked on only a sample of the ble, to do the same with osseous remains, whether osseous material industry found on the site and all they were worked on or not. Secondly, since the end our conclusions must therefore be moderated.

The remains General remarks of wild boars are also well described. They called these “tranchet de cordonnier”, in reference to a tool When A. Lacam and R. Niederlender published used by shoemakers to cut leather. By considering the results of their excavations, they presented the morphology of their active part, we deliberately mainly finished objects and mentioned some antlers chose to group together these two types of objects presenting marks of sawing. In reality, the number in the same category as the bevelled objects. This of the debitage waste products is greater than the category contains the greatest number of objects number of finished objects, representing 56% of the (26 artefacts) (Fig. 3). Perforating objects are well remains (Fig. 3). A massive bevelled object, which represented with 13 objects and the other finished they identified as an axe or a pick, is the most studied objects are represented by only 1 or 2 examples (per- tool (Fig. 4). Objects shaped with the canine teeth forated objects, handles, smoothers and one indeter-

Fig. 3: items repartition by category of products and finished objects repartition by types 66 Benjamin Marquebielle

Fig. 4: the “axe” of Le Cuzoul de Gramat minate object with a double perforation). Blanks are Finished objects represented by only 4 remains, most on deer antler. The debitage waste products represent the greatest The bevelled objects constitute the majority of number of objects, with 63 remains. They are almost the finished objects. Only 7 of these are made with all on antlers, except 2 waste products on wild boar deer antler and most are shaped on antler segments. canines . The biggest object, which measures 367 mm long The state of preservation of the remains is rela- and 48 mm wide in its mesial part is made on the tively good but varies depending on the raw materi- lower beam (Fig. 4). The distal part forms a simple al. Bone and dentine remains are the best preserved. bevel and the proximal part has a circular perfora- The antler objects present various states of preservation, which is linked with its hafting: there is only tion: the un-worked surfaces are often powdery but one object of this type in the collection. R. Lacam the technical traces are readable. and A. Niederlender identified it as an axe to work Mesolithic bone tools in Southwestern Europe: the example of the French site of “Le Cuzoul de Gramat” 67

Fig. 5: bevelled objects (n° 1, 4, 5, 6: from antler segments; n° 2, 3: from antler flat blanks; n° 7: lateral convex bevel object on canines of wild boars; n° 8: lateral concave bevel object on canine of wild boars; n° 9-11: “tranchet de cordonnier” of R. Lacam et A. Niederlender or distal concave bevel object on canines of wild boars) wood or a hoe to dig the ground. It is reminiscent Jauretche 1953), Les Balmettes (Monin, Pelletier of the northern Mesolithic axes and particularly 2000) and La Vieille-Eglise (Ginestet et al. 1984), some mattocks (Smith 1989): it presents the same but they are often fragmentary or complete objects morphology and similar use-wear traces. These use- with no perforation. wear traces correspond more to working the ground Four other bevelled objects of smaller dimensions than to working with wood. The striations of shaping were made on antler tines. One of them (Fig. 5:1) is are still visible and the surface of the bevel is only a fragment of an object shaped on large tine (this ob- slightly polished, while working with wood (cutting ject measures 104 mm long and 32 mm wide). This or barking) tends to highly polish the surface of the fragment could be the distal part of a bevelled ob- bevel and to erase the traces of shaping. These types ject with morphology similar to Vatte di Zambana’s of massive bevelled objects, often too quickly quali- “axe” (Rozoy 1978). Three other objects were made fied as axes based on a simple morphological com- from the extremity of a tine (Fig. 5:4-6). Of close parison, are well known in northern Europe but are dimensions, they measure on average 130 mm long; much rarer in the south. In France, there are only the active part is a simple bevel for two objects and a few examples at the sites of Le Poeymaü (Laplace- a double bevel for one. These objects are morpho- 68 Benjamin Marquebielle

Fig. 6: perforating objects all made with bone (n° 1-3: straight elements with double points; n° 4: decorated awl and detail; n° 5-10: fragments of awls) logically similar to wedges and chisels made on lender). This type of object is known at other French whole tines, which are well known during the Neo- Mesolithic sites with various names and presumed lithic (Camps-Fabrer, Ramseyer 1998). functions. They are sometimes described as perfo- Only two bevelled objects could have been realized rating objects (Péquart et al. 1937; Rozoy 1978) or on a flat blank, and they are fragmentary (Fig. 5:2-3). as perforating and sharp objects (Barbaza 1989). In They are two distal parts of small dimensions (31 and a recent study of the Swiss sites of Ogens and Birs- 26 mm long). The objects are thin with a plano-con- matten, they are presented as burins that were used vex section and the spongy substance appears on the in the same way as their lithic counterparts, to scrape inferior face. This morphology could suggest a flat and groove (David 2000). In numerous publications, blank, such as a baguette, but the modalities of deb- they are simply presented as being shaped teeth or itage are unclear. In addition their small size, their tools made with the tusk of wild boars, without any shaping and use erased the possible traces of debitage other interpretation, which underlines the perplex- and polished the surface. Does this correspond to the ity of the authors. Use-wear analysis of Neolithic debitage of a baguette by extraction, by splitting or objects mainly indicates their use in wood working a debitage of elongated fragments by percussion? We (Maigrot 2001). Some modern hunters-gatherers of cannot be certain for the moment. Irian Jaya use this type of object to shape the shaft of The great majority of the bevelled objects are arrows, or less often to shape daggers made of bone made with the canines of wild boars and these ob- (Chiquet et al. 1997). Though it is tempting to apply jects present various morphologies (19 items). The these hypotheses to our societies of Mesolithic forest bevel edge constituting the active part is sometimes hunters-gatherers, the Neolithic and modern tools concave and localized in distal extremity (Fig. 5:9- present some differences. They are made in particu- 11) or concave, convex or straight and localized on lar of a whole canine while the Mesolithic tools are one or two sides (Fig. 5:7-8). The dimensions of shaped on split teeth. Nevertheless, in both cases, the the items are also variable, between 35 mm for the active part sought after is a bevel, as seems to be the smallest objects with straight bevels and 96 mm for case for the Mesolithic objects as well. the biggest objects with a distal bevel (the “tran- The perforating objects, all realized on bone, con- chets de cordonnier” of R . Lacam and A . Nieder- sist mostly of fragments of awls that are broken at Mesolithic bone tools in Southwestern Europe: the example of the French site of “Le Cuzoul de Gramat” 69

Fig. 7: n° 1, 2: perforated phalanxes; n° 3: possible handle; n° 4, 5: smoothers; n° 6: indeterminate object with double perforation their proximal extremity and often also in their dis- the straight elements with double points is very im- tal part (Fig. 6:4-10). They measure between 11 and portant. 81 mm and are thin (between 2 and 10 mm wide). Other types of finished objects are represented by Some fragments are very slender, while the others only single examples or by a very small number of are more massive, though comparisons are difficult items. Two objects could be fragments of smoothers. because no object is complete. One large unbroken One is a fragment (53 mm long) of an active part awl is indicated in the publication of 1944 (Lacam et (Fig. 7:4). It is shaped on bone and is highly polished al. 1944) as accompanying the skeleton in the grave, by use. The second object, also made of bone, has but this object is regrettably lost. We have only an larger dimensions (160 mm long). Its distal part is indistinct representation that we did not include in also very worn and polished by use (Fig. 7:5). our technological study. Another awl, realized on Among the objects, we also identified 2 bovid a fragment of a deer vertebra, is the only decorated phalanges with a hole on their anterior face (Fig. object of the collection, with a sort of small grid or 7:1-2). Traces of removal by direct percussion with succession of crosses made by incision (Fig. 6:4). the active cutting part of a tool are visible near the At French sites, a small number of objects with this perforation, created by a nicking action. These per- type of decoration are known, at Rouffignac, Dor- forations do not appear to be compatible with an dogne (Barrière 1973; Rozoy 1978) or in Brittany alimentary exploitation of bones: the perforations (Péquart 1934; Péquart et al. 1937; Kayser 1988). have a smaller diameter and are relatively regular, Three perforating objects are straight elements with and thus seem little poorly to the easy recovery of double points. They are 42, 44 and 69 mm long, marrow. The function of these objects remains un- and present a regular oval section. This type of ob- known; they may have been small-sized containers ject is frequently identified as being a straight fish- (Rozoy 1978). According to the publication of 1944 hook. However, the large size of one of the objects (Lacam et al. 1944), other objects of this type were and the absence of any arrangement in connec- discovered but have since disappeared. tion with the fixation of a line other interpretations One object in the collection could be a handle possible: arrowhead, double awl, etc. (Averbouh, (Fig. 7:3). It is a deer antler section, 56 mm long, Cleyet-Merle 1995). Unlike awls, the shaping of with it spongy tissue hollowed out and a com- 70 Benjamin Marquebielle

Fig. 8: possible blanks (n° 1-3: end of tines; n° 4: vestibular face of wild boar canine)

Fig. 9: waste products (n° 1, 2: antler tine; n° 3, 4: antler base; n° 5: fragment of wild boar canine) pletely smooth surface. However, the bad state of nected with a hafting but we cannot be sure if this ob- preservation of the spongy part and the former un- ject is a handle or an active part intended to be fit to fortunate restoration damage obscure the technical a handle. traces. It is thus difficult to be sure of the deliber- ate human origin of the disappearance of the spongy Blanks tissue . There is also a large fragmentary object in the We found only four probable blanks. Three tines collection, realised on bone. It is missing an en- of deer antler could be blanks, due to very neat debit- tire side and also an extremity, thus we have only age marks (Fig. 8:1-3). In addition, one of the pieces a vague idea of its general morphology (Fig. 7:6). It has dimensions very similar to the bevelled finished is shaped on a whole radius of red deer and presents objects on tine. We know our definition of an antler a bifacial circular perforation with a very regular blank is somewhat problematic, however. We rely on shape at its extremity. This perforation could be con- clear debitage marks to distinguish blank to waste, Mesolithic bone tools in Southwestern Europe: the example of the French site of “Le Cuzoul de Gramat” 71 but the finished objects on tine present rather sloppy niques of sawing or removal by direct percussion. debitage. Moreover, as discussed below, the produc- Tines represent the majority of the waste products tion of blanks on tine seem to be secondary. Yet, we on antler and come from the lower part of the antler consider these three pieces as blanks, while wait- (eye, bez and trez tine) (Fig. 9:1-2). As for the waste ing for more information about antler exploitation products on basal parts, they present traces of saw- thanks to recent excavations. ing or removal by direct percussion, though the ma- The fourth blank is made with a wild boar tusk jority of tines seem to have been cut without any pre- (Fig. 8:4). Its morphology and size are similar to that liminary work – the fracture plans are irregular, with of the finished objects with a lateral concave bevel more or less intensive saw teeth marks – (Averbouh, and they have debitage traces but neither shaping nor Provenzano 1999). In general, the debitage waste use marks. Its status as a blank is more assured than originates from the lower part of the antler (basal that of the blanks on tine because there are debitage part, low beam, base, eye or trez tine) and there is no traces and blank regularisation removals made by waste originating from the higher part of the antler diffuse percussion after the debitage. (higher beam or palmation). A very small amount of debitage waste results Waste products from a longitudinal exploitation of blocks. Two waste products attest to a splitting of the wild boar canine. Waste products are the most numerous objects in One of these remains shows the end of a grooving the assemblage. They are represented by 63 pieces, realised in the longitudinal axis of the tooth, on the the majority on deer antler (and only two pieces on distal face (Fig. 9:5). This groove is associated with wild boar tusk). removals by diffuse percussion, maybe a beginning The majority of waste results from a transverse of shaping, but nothing comparable with the regular- exploitation of antler (58 pieces). Ten of them are ization of blank. Neither of these two objects show basal parts, which provide important information traces of use. Debitage waste that would indicate about the size and the origin of the antler, along a longitudinal exploitation of the antler is much less with numerous indications of technical order (Fig. explicit. Only three pieces, originating from the low- 9:3-4). All these basal parts originate from shed ant- er beam, could indicate a splitting or a fracturing by ler. Six basal parts correspond to a large antler size diffuse percussion. These pieces are elongated and class (with a circumference of more than 170 cm). flattened sections.T heir superior faces correspond to All these bases are debitage waste products resulting the natural surface of the antler and their lower faces from blank production by sectioning, showing tech- show the spongy substance.

Raw material

The Mesolithic groups of Cuzoul used antler, absence of waste products and blanks. This is par- bone and dentin to produce their osseous material ticularly true for perforating objects. The only excep- industry. The antler raw material is represented only tion is the dorsal vertebra of a deer from which the by red deer antlers. The size classes are variable, but decorated awl was clearly shaped. The thickness of the large size class dominates. If we consider the ten some other finished objects and traces of the med- basal parts of the collection, only two of them orig- ullary cavity on some of them indicate rather long inate from small size class antlers . If we consider bones of large species. The identification is clearer all the tines, the size and thickness of compact parts for a small number of objects. The largest smoother also indicate the use of well developed antlers. The made from a red deer femur, the indeterminate ob- basal parts all come from shed antlers. These indi- ject with a double perforation on a deer radius, and cate a harvest and therefore a supply of antlers not two bovid phalanges were perforated. All the species directly related to hunting. The surfaces are relative- identified are present in the faunal assemblage and the ly well preserved. There are no rodent traces. This bone supply could therefore be related to hunting, but suggests that the antlers were collected soon after this cannot be stated with certainty due to the small their shedding, at the end of winter or the beginning number of identifications and their inaccuracies. of spring, as deer lose their antlers around February As far as dentine is concerned, raw material was and March. strictly selected. Mesolithic groups used only the Regarding the bone raw material, it is more diffi- lower canine (sometimes called the “tusk”) of male cult to define what kinds of bones were used. This is wild boars. Most often, the right-side canine was mainly due to the shaping of finished object and the selected. The dimensions of the finished objects in- 72 Benjamin Marquebielle dicate the large size of the teeth of well developed then fractured carefully to avoid damaging the ca- adults. The wild boar canines are of triangular sec- nine. The wild boar bones in the faunal remains are tion, hollow on the greater part of their length and numerous, but the ancient selection of these remains deeply embedded in the jaw. Yet, the low thickness and the absence of recent archaeozoological study of some objects indicates they were made using the do not allow us to determine if mandibles were frac- base of the tooth. This means that the tooth had to tured in a specific way, which could indicate an ex- be extracted from the mandible and the bones were traction of the canine.

Debitage

The information about debitage is very different but there is variability and we noted no relationship for the various raw materials, mainly due to the dif- between the type of work (by sawing, by nicking, ferences of debitage among the waste products that peripheral or not, deep or not) and the shape, size or were preserved. However, the aims and methods of type of tine. The preparatory work is mostly made debitage still seem to be very different depending on by nicking and is limited to a single face of the tine. the raw material. The debitage is often made without this sort of work, In the case of deer antler, the main objective of and directly by flexion.T he resulting fracture planes the debitage is to produce segments. A first type of are then oblique, with more or less intensive saw debitage aims to produce blanks on the lower beam. tooth marks. It seems that the Mesolithic populations This type of blank is not present in the collection looked for a fast debitage, whether or not there was but several waste products and one finished object preliminary work. The “cleanliness” of the debitage (the “axe”) are indirect indications. The basal parts seems to be very secondary, as we can see on the fin- of antlers are the most voluminous waste products of ished objects, which present traces of fast debitage, this debitage phase and they provide the most infor- not erased by shaping. mation concerning the debitage of the proximal part Mental refitting shows that the Mesolithic popu- of the beam. The debitage of the beam into segments lations mainly looked for blanks coming from lower was made in two stages. Initially, a preliminary stage beams. The debitage waste products of the beam was realized, mostly on the posterior face of the ant- (basal parts and tines) are numerous by comparison ler, by sawing into the compact part of the antler, with blanks and finished objects on beams.T he pro- or less often by nicking. On ten basal parts of the duction of blanks on tines, whatever they are, seems collection, only two, of different size classes, show secondary, the majority of remains on tines being traces of nicking. This preparatory work is limited waste products. to a single face and affects only the thickness of The majority of deer antler remains indicate the compact part of the antler. After this, the final a transverse exploitation of block but it could indi- separation is made by flexion or direct percussion. cate some possibilities of longitudinal exploitation. The result is an oblique transverse truncation. This On one hand, we have two bevelled objects whose debitage could combine two advantages. Firstly it morphology indicates that they were shaped on flat is fast, and secondly it allows the active part of the blanks, such as baguettes. On the other hand, there future bevelled tool to be preformed. It is difficult is some debitage waste that could indicate either to be sure because we have only one finished object a splitting or a longitudinal fracturing of the antler: made from a whole beam and no blank which would they present traces of longitudinal sawing in connec- allow us to specify the first stages of the shaping, tion with fracture planes that are themselves equally but mental refitting between the axe and some basal longitudinal. It is very difficult, however, to associ- parts is valid, in terms of morphologies, size classes ate these two types of remains within one technical and technical traces. transformation scheme. The idea of a longitudinal The second type of debitage of deer antler aims to exploitation of deer antler is, for the moment, very produce blanks on tines. These blanks can be whole hypothetical (Fig. 11). tines, shaped into bevelled objects, or segments of We have little information concerning bone debit- tine, possibly shaped into handles (but we have few age. This is due mainly to the high shaping degree of indications about items on tine segments). The debit- the tools, whose debitage traces have been erased. age of tines is made, as for the beam, in two stages: The morphology of some awls, whose sides are lon- a preliminary phase by sawing or nicking before gitudinal fracture planes, could indicate bone break- a final separation by flexion. Mostly, the preliminary ing by direct percussion. Other awls also present work is fast and concerns only one face of the tine, marks of the medullar cavity on their lower face, Mesolithic bone tools in Southwestern Europe: the example of the French site of “Le Cuzoul de Gramat” 73 which indicate a long bone origin. However, these kinds of bones were often broken to recover the marrow. Were these bones therefore fractured to cook them or were they fractured to produce blanks (or both)? There are too few bone artefacts, consisting of only finished objects and no waste products, to help us. Moreover, there is no recent zooarchaeological study to inform us on alimentary bone exploitation. Regardless, if we consider only the number of bone tools and their morphological variety, we can sup- pose firstly, that the production of bone tools was not very significant, and secondly, that the morphology of blanks was varied. A debitage by fracturing, using direct percussion could have been a simple and effi- cient solution producing flat blanks that were shaped into perforating objects. Fig. 10: repartition of types of finished objects For the wild boar canines, the debitage modalities per raw material are well known. There are only two waste products but the traces on the finished objects allow us to re- constitute the main stages of the debitage. All the re- a wedge at the base of the tooth: we have no traces mains made on the canine teeth of wild boars indicate of this but an experiment proved the validity of this a longitudinal exploitation of the teeth. The purpose method. We obtained two blanks. The first one, wide of the debitage is to obtain elongated, flat blanks, and long, is constituted by the lingual face of the which we could compare with dentine blades. In fact, canine; it presents a double regular curvature in the the debitage of the wild boar canines takes advantage longitudinal axis and in the transverse axis. The sec- of the natural characteristics of the raw material. This ond blank is constituted by the vestibular face of the tooth, because of its hollow structure and its triangu- tooth, which is less wide than the lingual face and has lar shape, presents lines of natural weakness in the a less pronounced, or even-nonexistent, longitudinal longitudinal axis. Furthermore, after the death of the and transverse curvature. animal, it tends to crack, especially if it is extracted Nevertheless, the debitage of canine teeth seems from the mandible and placed in a dry environment or to have been realized according to various modali- near a heat source (Maigrot 2003). It is this weakness ties. Indeed, a number of objects do not present in the longitudinal axis that is exploited during the traces of grooving and we can imagine that Meso- debitage. The mesial edge of the canine, constituted lithic people were able to take advantage directly of by the junction of both enamelled faces, is a first zone well placed natural fissuring. Some finished objects of natural weakness. A longitudinal grooving, made are also shaped on blanks of small dimensions and on the distal face of the canine (the only one without varied shapes, though we cannot determine if these enamel), makes it possible to prepare a second line represent specifically produced blanks or the oppor- of fracture. The splitting can be realized by inserting tunistic re-use of debitage waste products.

Shaping

Scraping is the main technique used for shaping. (Camps-Fabrer 1974). Some concentric striations on On the antler blanks, scraping was used to shape the the first millimetres of the perforation, indicating the active part into a bevel. This scraping is unifacial; it use of scraping, are concomitant with little readable is carried out either at the end of the internal curva- traces, possible marks of a superficial nicking of the ture of a tine, at the end of a section on beam, or on antler to prepare the perforation. the lower face of a possible flat blank. The scraping Scraping is used in a more intrusive manner on is limited to the active part and does not extend to the bone objects. Indeed, most of the awls and all the rest of the surface of the object, which is left with- straight double-points show a complete scraping, out modifications, except for one object, the axe, which shaped the active part and covered the entire which is the only antler tool to present a perforation surface of the object. We must nevertheless remark on the proximal part. The perforation was made on that the majority of awls are fragmentary and that both faces since it presents a section “en diabolo” the only complete example, the decorated awl on 74 Benjamin Marquebielle a deer vertebra, is shaped only on the distal part: this ized by diffuse percussion. It would have allowed was perhaps also the case with the other awls, for the support to be formed by eliminating the vestiges which we no longer possess the proximal part. The of the distal face resulting from the splitting of the complete scraping is done with particular care for tooth. The active part of the object was then shaped the straight double-points, extending over the whole by scraping. The localization of this shaping is vari- surface, and their final shape is symmetric, both in able and depends on the morphology of the blank. the vertical and horizontal axes. Some objects on For wide and concave supports, on the lingual face bone, of little evident function, present a perforation. of the canine, the scraping is concentrated on the dis- For perforated phalanges, the shaping is realized by tal part – whereas for the less wide and rectilinear removal by direct percussion. Concerning the perfo- supports, on the vestibular face of the canine, it is rated object with an indeterminate function, shaped more concentrated on the mesial part, on one side. on the radius of a deer, we observe only that the per- The shaping is always localized on the lower face foration was made by scraping. of the object, by scraping of the dentin. The superior On certain objects made on wild boar canines, face, covered with hard enamel, is not modified and a first stage of shaping seems to have been real- constitutes the superior face of the bevel.

A first step toward understanding the Mesolithic osseous material industry of Southern Europe

Each new method of analysis has brought a new materials which do not agree with the image of re- vision. The technological approach has revealed gression traditionally associated with the Mesolithic a whole realm of Mesolithic material culture that is osseous material industry . far from ideas of poverty and opportunism. The Me- Concerning the exploitation of antlers, only deer solithic populations of Le Cuzoul de Gramat used antler was used. The supply was assured by the har- varied raw materials, in some cases carefully se- vest of shed antler, and large sized antlers of big size lected. They knew how to transform them by adapt- class were favoured. Their exploitation was mainly ing the modalities of exploitation according to the oriented toward blank production in the form of characteristics of the raw material and the objectives segments by sectioning beams or tines, which were of the production (Fig. 10). We have underlined par- shaped in bevelled objects by longitudinal scraping, ticular selections and exploitations of various raw limited to the active part (Fig. 11). In the present

Fig. 11: technical transformation scheme of deer antler Mesolithic bone tools in Southwestern Europe: the example of the French site of “Le Cuzoul de Gramat” 75

Fig. 12: technical transformation scheme of wild boar canine state of our research, the significant number of debitage waste products on tines and mental refitting indicate that the production of blanks on beams seemed to be more frequent than the debitage of blanks on tines. The very low number of finished objects on segments of beams (a single example: the axe), compared with the number of characteristic waste products, indicates that Le Cuzoul de Gra- mat was a site of production of this type of object, undoubtedly in association with a contemporary occupation of the site during the period of antler shedding. The exploitation of bone is more difficult to understand because the great majority of bone remains are represented by intensively shaped finished objects. The selection of the raw material and the debitage modalities are thus difficult to grasp. The exploita- Fig. 13: repartition of finished objects, tion of this raw material nevertheless shows peculi- blanks and waste products per raw material arities: firstly, the shaping was done by scraping, as it was for the other objects, but is sometimes very extensive and concerns the totality of the surface of showed us that objects shaped on the lingual face the object, and; secondly, the production is mainly of the right-side canine were particularly ergonomic directed to the production of perforating objects. when used as a scraper. We can thus evoke the hy- Concerning the exploitation of teeth, the selec- pothesis of the search for a particular morphology tion of the raw material was particularly selective: for these objects, in connection with their use. The only the lower canines of adult male wild boars were production of tools made with the canines of wild used, with a clear preference for the right-side ca- boars is also remarkable because it is the only tech- nine. The debitage of the canines was exclusively nical transformation scheme that employs the tech- directed toward the production of flat blanks, mainly nique of grooving, used to prepare the splitting of on the lingual face (11 finished items out of a total of the tooth. 19 objects in the collection) (Fig. 12). This regular- Deer antler is the most abundant raw material ity in the choice of blanks can be dictated by vari- (almost twice as many antler remains as bone and ous imperatives. Nevertheless, some experiments dentin remains combined) and the majority of these 76 Benjamin Marquebielle remains are debitage waste products. However, if tin. However, this kind of object is uncharacteristic we consider only the finished objects, antler objects and small and would thus not have been recognized are in the minority, while objects in bone and dentin and collected during the excavation. In addition, the are much more numerous (Fig. 13). It would thus former excavations concerned only a part of the de- appear there was a difference in the exploitation of posit, in front of the cave: this zone could be a work- the various raw materials: we have indications of ing area more specialized in the exploitation of ant- a local and intensive transformation of antlers, but ler (we know now there were occupations inside the no equivalent for bone and dentin. It is nevertheless cave and in the open-area in front of the cave). The necessary to qualify our comment. In the collection results of the recent excavations will help us to spec- of R. Lacam and A. Niederlender, we identified only ify, or correct, this image of differential exploitation, very few blanks and waste products in bone and den- favouring antlers.

Comparisons and synthesis

In southern France, Cuzoul de Gramat yielded sites, such as the British sites of Téviec and Hoëd- a major collection of osseous industry remains . Sam- ic, (Péquart et al., 1937 and Péquart, 1934). This is ples from others Mesolithic sites are smaller or do a particular context, however, as these two sites were not present the same variability in terms of raw ma- cemeteries and finished bone objects were found in terials and types of exploitation. the graves. In a context of an occupation site, the Thirty km around Cuzoul, in the Lot region, three Swiss site of Birsmatten can be compared with Cu- sites provided small collections (less than 20 items zoul. It contains a long stratigraphic sequence un- at each site): Les Fieux (Valdeyron, et al., in press), der a rock shelter and various raw materials were les Escabasses (Marquebielle, in progress) and Font- used in large quantities (Bandi, 1963 and David, faurès (Barbaza, 1989). The site of Le Sanglier is 2000) an exception as it yielded dozens of antler remains In general, though Mesolithic collections are (mostly debitage waste products). The study of this small, diverse raw materials were used at each site. collection is in progress (Séronie-Vivien, 2001 and At the great majority of sites, three osseous raw Marquebielle, work in progress). materials was exploited: bone, deer antler and den- This case of a high number of remains is uncom- tine (often from wild boar canines), even at small mon, however. If we compare it with sites within scale or low occupation frequency sites, such as Les a radius of 150 km around Cuzoul, small collec- Fieux or l’Aulp du Seuil, an altitude rock shelter tions of osseous industry remains are standard. The in Isère (Bintz et al., 1999 and Marquebielle, in sites of Rouffignac, in Dordogne (Barrière, 1973 and progress). Marquebielle, in progress) and Clos de Poujol in Concerning finished objects, some implements Aveyron (study of osseous industry by E. David in recovered from the excavations at Cuzoul are very Bridault et al, 2009) each yielded nearly thirty items, frequent on all Mesolithic sites that have yielded often broken but recognizable, whereas the sites of an osseous industry. Awls, for example, are always Cuze de Neussargues and Baraquettes, in the Cantal present and generally quickly and very simply region (Rozoy, 1978 and Surmely, 2003) and the site made on bone (the distal part was shape by scraping of Salzets, in Aveyron (Rozoy, 1978), yielded only a splinter). fragmentary osseous industry remains that are less Bevelled antler tools (such as the Cuzoul axe) are numerous and burned. rarer but known also over the whole French territory. Much further from Cuzoul, at the mountain site of This type of implement, made on antler segments, Poeymaü in Pyrénées-Atlantique, the osseous indus- has been found in the Pyrénées (Poeymaü), the Alps try collection is large, composed of more than fifty (La Vielle Eglise: Ginestet et al., 1984 and Marque- items consisting mostly of finished objects (Laplace, bielle, in progress) and beyond the French borders 1953 and Marquebielle, in progress). But at other in Portugal, Switzerland, Italy, England (see Rozoy, Pyrenean sites, such as Troubat in Hautes-Pyrénées 1978) and especially in all of northern Europe (see (Barbaza, 1989) and Balma Margineda in Andorra David, 1999). (Guilaine et al., 1995), the Mesolithic populations Bevelled objects on wild boar canines with left only slight indications of an osseous industry a “tranchet” shape are less common in Europe and (less than around ten items on each site). known in a smaller region, between the Pyrénées, At some sites, the osseous industry is large and Britain and northern Switzerland. Though wild boar varied, but we had to compare with long distance canines were used in northern Europe, their exploi- Mesolithic bone tools in Southwestern Europe: the example of the French site of “Le Cuzoul de Gramat” 77 tation was different than at Cuzoul or in the Swiss harpoon fragments recovered at this site) or bone at examples (David, 2000): it was simpler and included Rouffignac. In the northern Europe, during the Mes- no finished objects with the characteristic “tranchet” olithic, grooving was widely used in connection with shape. In the southern regions of Europe, however, the manufacturing of projectile points and bevelled wild boar canines were also used to produce objects or perforating objects (David, 1999). We had to clar- with various and simple shapes. ify the use of grooving in southern Europe, where In all of southern France, Mesolithic populations this technique seems to have been more frequently exploited osseous raw materials in the same manner used during the Epipaleolithic (Azilian harpoons: that we observed at Cuzoul, which could be consid- Mons, 1995) and Neolithic (bone awls: Camps-Fa- ered, for the moment, as a reference site. brer, 1990). Nevertheless some manufacturing processes used It is now necessary to enlarge the kind of study at others sites are unknown at Cuzoul. For example, we conducted at Cuzoul to other sites in order to to produce bevelled objects on wild boar canines, attempt to specify the role of the osseous material and only in this case, Mesolithic populations at Cu- industry within the economy of Mesolithic popu- zoul used grooving. But at some other French sites, lations, as well as to understand how this industry grooving was used with other raw materials: deer evolved through time and if this evolution was con- antler at Clos de Poujol (maybe in connection with comitant with changes in the lithic industry.

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank Thomas Lafon and Magen O’Farell for their help during the translation.

References

Averbouh, A. 2000. Technologie de la matière osseuse Isère, France), un site d’altitude du Mésolithique et du travaillée et implication palethnologique; l’exemple Néolithique ancien, études préliminaires, In: A. Thévenin des chaînes d’exploitation du bois de cervidé chez les and P. Bintz (dir.), L’Europe des derniers chasseurs. Epi- magdaléniens des Pyrénées, Thèse de doctorat, Université paléolithique et Mésolithique. 5° colloque international de Paris I – Panthéon-Sorbonne, Paris. UISPP, 18-23 septembre 1995, 611-616. Averbouh, A. and J.-J. Cleyet-Merle 1995. Fiche Bridault, A., E. David, et M. Boboeuf 2009. Matter hameçons, In: H. Camps-Fabrer (ed.) Fiches typologiques and Material: Red Deer antler exploitation during the de l’industrie osseuse préhistorique, Cahier VI : éléments Mesolithic at Clos de Poujol (Aveyron, France), In: L. barbelés et apparentés, Treignes: Editions du Cédarc, Fontana, F.-X. Chauvière and B. Anne (dir.), In Search 83-99. of Total Animal Exploitation. Case Studies from the Up- Averbouh, A. and N. Provenzano 1999. Proposition per Palaeolithic and Mesolithic. Proceedings of the XVth pour une terminologie du travail préhistorique des matières UISPP Congress, Session C61, Lisbon, 4-9 September osseuses: I – les techniques, Préhistoire et Anthropologie 2006, vol. 42., BAR International Series 2040, John and méditerranéennes 7-8, 5-25. Erica Hedges, Oxford, 135-154. Barbaza, M. 1989. Cultures et société au Paléolithique Camps-Fabrer, H. dir. 1990. Fiches typologiques de terminal, au Mésolithique et au début du Néolithique ancien l’industrie osseuse préhistorique, cahier III : poinçons, dans le sud-ouest de l’Europe, Mémoire d’habilitation à pointes, poignards, aiguilles. Ed. l’Université de Pro- diriger des recherches, Toulouse: Université de Toulouse vence. II – le Mirail. Camps-Fabrer, H., L. Bourrely and N. Nivelle 1974. Barbaza, M. 1989. Cultures et société au Paléolithique Lexique des termes descriptifs de l’industrie de l’os, Aix terminal, au Mésolithique et au début du Néolithique ancien en Provence: Editions de l’Université de Provence. dans le sud-ouest de l’Europe, Mémoire d’habilitation à Camps-Fabrer, H. and D. Ramseyer 1998. Fiche objet diriger des recherches, Toulouse le Mirail. biseauté non perforé pris sur extrémité d’andouiller de Bandi, H.-G. 1963. Birsmatten-Basisgrotte: eine mit- cerf, In: H. Camps-Fabrer (ed.) Fiches typologiques de telsteinzeitliche Fundstelle im unteren Birstal, Bern. l’industrie osseuse préhistorique, Cahier VIII : biseaux et Barrière, C. 1973. Rouffignac, l’archéologie, Travaux tranchants. Treignes: Editions du Cédarc, 31-50. de l’Institut d’Art Préhistorique XV, 4-160. Chiquet, P., E. Rachez, and P. Petrequin 1997. Les Bintz, P., J. Argant, L. Chaix, D. Pelletier and S. défenses de sanglier, In: P. Pétrequin (ed.) Les sites littoraux Thiébault 1999. L’Aulp du Seuil (Saint-Bernard-du-Touvet, néolithiques de Clairvaux-les-Lacs et de Chalain (Jura), 78 Benjamin Marquebielle

III, Chalain station 3, 3200-2900 av. J.C., Paris: Editions Marquebielle, B. 2007. Première approche sur l’ex- de la Maison des Sciences de l’Homme, 511-21. ploitation des matières dures animales au Mésolithique. Coulonges, L. 1935. Les gisements préhistoriques de L’industrie osseuse des niveaux du Mésolithique récent Sauveterre-la-Lémance (Lot-et-Garonne), Archives de au Cuzoul de Gramat, Mémoire de Master II, Toulouse: l’Institut de paléontologie humaine 14, Paris: Masson et Université de Toulouse II – Le Mirail. Cie . Editeurs . Monin, G. and D. Pelletier 2000. Note sur les indus- David, E. 1999. L’industrie en matières dures animales tries mésolithiques et néolithiques ancien de l’abri des du Mésolithique ancien et moyen en Europe du Nord. Balmettes (St Aupre, Isère), et proposition de chronologie Contribution de l’analyse technologique à la définition du Mésolithique ancien et de la fin de l’Epipaléolithique du Maglemosien. Thèse de doctorat, Université de Paris au Préboréal entre Alpes françaises du Nord et Jura X Nanterre. méridional, In: T. Tillet (ed.) Géologie Alpine, mémoire David, E. 2000. L’industrie en matières dures ani- H.S. n°31. Les Paléoalpins, hommage à Pierre Bintz, males des sites mésolithiques de la Baume d’Ogens et de Grenoble: Laboratoire de géologie de l’Université I de Birsmatten-Basisgrotte (Suisse), In: Meso’97: actes de la Grenoble, 129-41. Table ronde «Epipaléolithique et Mésolithique», Lausanne, Mons, L. 1995. Fiche harpons aziliens, In: H. Camps- 21-23 novembre 1997, Cahiers d’archéologie romande 81, Fabrer (dir.), Fiches typologiques de l’industrie osseuse 79-100. préhistorique, cahier VI : éléments barbelés et apparentés, Ginestet, J.-P., P. Bintz, L. Chaix, J. Evin and C. Olive Editions du Cédarc, Treignes. 1984. L’abri sous roche de la Vieille Église La Balme-de- Péquart, M. and S.-J. Péquart 1934. La nécropole mé- Thuy (Haute Savoie). Premiers Résultats, Bulletin de la solithique de l’île d’Hoëdic (Morbihan), L’Anthropologie Société Préhistorique Française 81, 320-42. 44, 1-20. Guilaine, J. dir. 1995. Les Excavacions a la Balma de Péquart, M., S.-J. Péquart, M. Boulle and H. Valois la Margineda (1979-1991) 2. Primera part, Estudi arqueo- 1937. Téviec: station-nécropole mésolithique du Morbihan, logic de les capes historiques, neolitiques i mesolitiques Archives de l’Institut de Paléontologie Humaine 18, Paris: (capes de la 4 a la 6). Govern d’Andorra. Masson et Cie . Editeurs . Kayser, O. and G. Bernier 1988. Nouveaux objets dé- Rozoy, J.G. 1978. Les Derniers chasseurs. L’Epipaléoli- corés du Mésolithique armoricain, Bulletin de la Société thique en France et en Belgique: essai de synthèse, Bulletin Préhistorique Française 85, 45-7. de la société archéologique champenoise, no. spécial. Lacam, R., A. Niederlender and H. Valois 1944. Le Seronie-Vivien, M.-R. 2001. La grotte du Sanglier à gisement mésolithique du Cuzoul de Gramat, Archives de Reilhac (Lot) Du Magdalénien au Néolithique ancien, l’Institut de paléontologie humaine 21, Paris: Masson et Préhistoire du Sud-Ouest, Supplément n°4. Cie . Editeurs . Smith, C. 1989. British antler Mattocks, In: C. Bonsall Laplace-Jauretche, G. 1953. Les couches à escargots (ed.) The Mesolithic in Europe. Actes du 3rd symposium des cavernes pyrénéennes et le problème de l’Arisien de international de l’U.I.S.P.P., Edinburgh, 1985, Edinburgh: Piette, Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 50, John Donald Publishers, 367-78. 199-211. Surmely, F. 2003. Le Cuze de Neussargues (Sainte- Maigrot, Y. 2001. Technical und functional study of Anastasie, Cantal). Le site mésolithique des Baraquettes ethnographic (Irian Jaya, Indonesia) and archaeological (Velzic, Cantal) et le peuplement de la moyenne montagne (Chalain and Clairvaux, Jura, France, 30th century BC) cantalienne, des origines à la fin du Mésolithique, Pôle tools made from boars’ tusks, In: S. Beyries and P. Pétrequin éditorial de l’Ouest, Rennes. (eds.) Ethno-archaeology and its transfers (Papers from Valdeyron, N., T. Briand, L. Bouby, A. Henry, R. a session held at the European Association of Archaeolo- Khedhaier, B. Marquebielle, H. Martin, A. Thibeau, and gists Fifth Annual Meeting in Bournemouth 1999), BAR B. Bosc-Zanardo in press. Le gisement mésolithique des Intern. Series 983, Oxford: Archaeopress, 67-80. Fieux (Miers, Lot) : une halte de chasse sur le causse de Maigrot, Y. 2003. Etude technologique et fonctionnelle Gramat?, In: F. Bon, S. Costamagno, and N. Valdeyron de l’outillage en matières dures animales: la station 4 de (ed.) Haltes de chasse en Préhistoire : quelles réalités Chalain (Néolithique final, Jura, France), Thèse de doc- archéologiques? Actes du colloque international, Toulouse, torat, Université de Paris I – Panthéon-Sorbonne, Paris. 13-15 mai 2009, Palethnologie 3.